Really nice tone to your speech, declarative and professional and forceful. You do need to work on your word economy, making sure that you make the argument as quickly, efficiently and directedly as possible.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice
Kat—
Good start to it. Nice job using your eidnece, Be more specific on what it is going to start on. Get some fire in your voice and coming across when you can.
2nd—much better start, disregarded and ignored is irrelevant,
Practice Round 1 (Baxter)
Don’t worry about freestsyling the 1AC—you can just read it
Use all of the cx of the 1nc, its prep time for your 2ac
Really nice job making eye contact and speaking with the judge in the 1ar—you do need to focus on efficiency in this speech, no repetition, etc—in the future you will have much more time pressure
Nice job extending your arguments—comparing the aff etc—make sure you are also extending your 2AC evidence
Really nice extention of your aff to use, but make sure that you keep some order and some organization so that you are easier to flow
Don’t get repetirive at the end, if you are done for some reason stop, or find other arguments to extend, but not the same stuff
PRACTICE ROUND 2 8/6 (CLEMMONS)
Go for the CP first. The reason is that it is easier to have Jung go for case in the 2NC than it will be to go over the advantage for the CP
Great explanations of all the evidence. One critique of that is you use more time that you can use to read cards. The 1NC almost sounded like the 1NR with the amount of the explanation that happened
CX was very good. You stood your ground and protected your arguments with explanations.
1NR was a little repetitive...feel free to read more evidence in the speech to support your points. One great place might have been if you had anymore solvency for the CP that was non WHEELER
USE ALL YOUR TIME IN THE 1NR! PUT PRESSURE ON THE 1AR
Rebuttal Redo--1NR Thursday 8/7
1-Not repetitive, using proper lingo (CP, neg (not negation)
2-nice job, you need to work on your efficiently (you are entirely capable of doing this, believe in yourself)--keep focusing on power too, be forceful and authoritative
Practice Round 3 Thursday 8/7 (Baxter)
Need to make sure that your 2NC order is something viable—I understand that you need something to do with the case, since you have not enough there—but consider carefully which arguments you really need to have, because you need to spend as much time as possible expanding on/extending/developing the disads—for instance you should say that the disad “outweighs and turns the case”—continue to speak in taglines, don’t lose your efficiency
Make sure you don’t cover everything, you need to leave Conrad 5 minutes worth of actual argumentation
The 2nr needs to start out with an overview, a big picture statement where you explain what precisely it is that you are doing with the the speech, so everything fits into an existant framework. You need to move to the macro-level, too much fo the beginning of the 2nr is really micro level. Explain why your cards are “good quality” “DISAD OUTWEIGSHS AND TURNS THE CASE!!”
Nice job speaking in taglines in this speech. Re-reading the excellent parts of your evidence is really nice, but don’t overdo this. You don’t have enough time to essentially reintroduce the entire card.
Advocacy Drill Friday 8/8
--don’t say “I’m going line by line”, the 2AC should just be saying the arguments down the line
--get mad and fired up (ur a cheerleader right?)
--what are the two arguments that always need to be made on an advocacy?
--shorter on explaining their evidence, just say their “volt no solvency” evidence
--extend the Watson evidence, explain why the ethix of that situation outweigh theirs
--nice job using your evidence
--you prolly need to highlight your 2ac evidence down a bit
Practice Round 4 Friday 8/8 (Baxter)
Just make the arguemtns in the 2ac, don’t worry about addressing them to anything specific
Taglines, you need to speak and start in taglines in this speech
Make sure your transition to the case debate is clear and that your critic knows where you are
Use your 1ac evidence too, cross apply those cards, many of them deal with these question
There is a lot that I like about your 2ar overview, I think you also want to make the comparison that is most relevant here, disad against starvation etc.
What is the impact to “noaa bad”, I think u might be able to say that this argument just doesn’t matter
Rebuttal Redo
That was very efficient and your making the arguments you need to make. The next step you need is to contextualize your arguments in terms of impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude). You are explaining why you're winning on each position, but impact calc will help you to cover your bases so that areas that you aren't completely winning (for instance, just having defense on the politics disad) is less threatening.
Practice Round 8/9 (Liz)
Your ethics card in the 1AC is good. You should consider adding framework arguments or more, other impact prioritization arguments to this aff if you find yourself wanting to collapse to this ethics card or ethics framing - particularly against negative strategies like this one that just read one off politics. You could read a bunch of generic ethics cards, deontology, or whatever you want. But I think that's something about this aff that you're not capitalizing on as much as you could. You need more 2AC offense against politics. Your terminal D is good and should get read, but you need to be generating offense as well. Moreover, you can just start calc-ing this politics disad out of the round with your ethics card. So even if you're not reading framework in the 1AC, you could read it in the 2AC to make this disad go away and/or control the internal links (because I'm positive there are cards out there that say the reason terror exists is because of Otherization, and if your aff prioritizes an ethical relationship to the Other via food or resource distribution it seems to me like the aff resolves the internal link to politics). You're doing a good job of impact comparison in the 2AR -- more of that, plz :)
Rebuttal Redos--Monday 8/11
--overview needs to not get to the meta-level, just what the comparison is going to do for it
--save the specifics for moving on to the cp itself, need to speak more on the flow because of that
--address specific aff arguments 2ac order
Practice Round 8--Monday 8/11
--stay involved in the 1ac
--quicker transitions in the 1ar
--don’t be repetitive on your extention of the ux evidence, just say what it is and why its good
--good job sticking with 2ac structure
Impact Comparison Drill--8/12
--really nice job indicting their impact argument, I would probably start with why yours is good and transition to theirs bad, but again still very good
--which of these categories matters more?
--nice introductory comparison, timeframe delineations are really good
--don’t be repetitive on the “its already started” claims
--you don’t have to talk about all the categories if you do not want to
Topicality Drill--8/13
—really nice attitude
--I think u undersold the interpretation a little bit
--don’t lose that ethos and variation as you go down to the bottom of the debate
--you need to actually care about those parts of the argument
Practice Debate 8/13 (Liz)
You should work on seeing the forest through the trees. You've got conceded offense on case, but then you're reading a card that conflicts with that offense. Take a little prep if you need to and go through and identify what you've got going for you on each piece of paper. If offshore wind makes CO2 output worse, then it seems like that's a reason to not vote aff. Also, the 2AC doesn't read uniqueness with the link turns, which means that really only functions as defense for them. That seems like you've got two places where there's a substantial risk that the aff is definitely a bad idea. I think the 2NR also needs to be mostly impact comparison and weighing and less line by line.
Practice Debate 11—8/15 (Baxter)
--this is probably a little more work thatn you want to use in ur 2nc prep, not DRAMATICALLY too much, but certainly some
--need some more analytical arguments dealing with their link turn arguments directly
--nice job explaining the impact arguemtns using evidence etc, bu t make sure that you are still overwhelmingly focused on responding to 2ac arguments
--ou are doing an excelltn job talking to the judge, but you might want to be doing that simultaneously from your flow—I think its likely that you can maintain th structure a little stronger and more efficiently in the first place
--be very clear what answersthey have made on the politix da and what do you need to do to get rid of them
--say “our internal link is stronger than their shit’
Practice Debate 12--8/15 (Baxter)
--extend the permutation—no reason we can’t do this, we cant wait to see if the technology works
-use the angle of solvency deficit and make sure to impact that question
--not prove they have any solvency
--when you don’t consciously criticize yourself you are doing a great job sounding convicngin, there is no fucking chance that I would know you had never seen this before
First speaking/evidence drill:
Really nice tone to your speech, declarative and professional and forceful. You do need to work on your word economy, making sure that you make the argument as quickly, efficiently and directedly as possible.
Mini Rebuttal Redo Practice
Kat—
Good start to it. Nice job using your eidnece, Be more specific on what it is going to start on. Get some fire in your voice and coming across when you can.
2nd—much better start, disregarded and ignored is irrelevant,
Practice Round 1 (Baxter)
Don’t worry about freestsyling the 1AC—you can just read it
Use all of the cx of the 1nc, its prep time for your 2ac
Really nice job making eye contact and speaking with the judge in the 1ar—you do need to focus on efficiency in this speech, no repetition, etc—in the future you will have much more time pressure
Nice job extending your arguments—comparing the aff etc—make sure you are also extending your 2AC evidence
Really nice extention of your aff to use, but make sure that you keep some order and some organization so that you are easier to flow
Don’t get repetirive at the end, if you are done for some reason stop, or find other arguments to extend, but not the same stuff
PRACTICE ROUND 2 8/6 (CLEMMONS)
Go for the CP first. The reason is that it is easier to have Jung go for case in the 2NC than it will be to go over the advantage for the CP
Great explanations of all the evidence. One critique of that is you use more time that you can use to read cards. The 1NC almost sounded like the 1NR with the amount of the explanation that happened
CX was very good. You stood your ground and protected your arguments with explanations.
1NR was a little repetitive...feel free to read more evidence in the speech to support your points. One great place might have been if you had anymore solvency for the CP that was non WHEELER
USE ALL YOUR TIME IN THE 1NR! PUT PRESSURE ON THE 1AR
Rebuttal Redo--1NR Thursday 8/7
1-Not repetitive, using proper lingo (CP, neg (not negation)
2-nice job, you need to work on your efficiently (you are entirely capable of doing this, believe in yourself)--keep focusing on power too, be forceful and authoritative
Practice Round 3 Thursday 8/7 (Baxter)
Need to make sure that your 2NC order is something viable—I understand that you need something to do with the case, since you have not enough there—but consider carefully which arguments you really need to have, because you need to spend as much time as possible expanding on/extending/developing the disads—for instance you should say that the disad “outweighs and turns the case”—continue to speak in taglines, don’t lose your efficiency
Make sure you don’t cover everything, you need to leave Conrad 5 minutes worth of actual argumentation
The 2nr needs to start out with an overview, a big picture statement where you explain what precisely it is that you are doing with the the speech, so everything fits into an existant framework. You need to move to the macro-level, too much fo the beginning of the 2nr is really micro level. Explain why your cards are “good quality” “DISAD OUTWEIGSHS AND TURNS THE CASE!!”
Nice job speaking in taglines in this speech. Re-reading the excellent parts of your evidence is really nice, but don’t overdo this. You don’t have enough time to essentially reintroduce the entire card.
Advocacy Drill Friday 8/8
--don’t say “I’m going line by line”, the 2AC should just be saying the arguments down the line
--get mad and fired up (ur a cheerleader right?)
--what are the two arguments that always need to be made on an advocacy?
--shorter on explaining their evidence, just say their “volt no solvency” evidence
--extend the Watson evidence, explain why the ethix of that situation outweigh theirs
--nice job using your evidence
--you prolly need to highlight your 2ac evidence down a bit
Practice Round 4 Friday 8/8 (Baxter)
Just make the arguemtns in the 2ac, don’t worry about addressing them to anything specific
Taglines, you need to speak and start in taglines in this speech
Make sure your transition to the case debate is clear and that your critic knows where you are
Use your 1ac evidence too, cross apply those cards, many of them deal with these question
There is a lot that I like about your 2ar overview, I think you also want to make the comparison that is most relevant here, disad against starvation etc.
What is the impact to “noaa bad”, I think u might be able to say that this argument just doesn’t matter
Rebuttal Redo
That was very efficient and your making the arguments you need to make. The next step you need is to contextualize your arguments in terms of impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude). You are explaining why you're winning on each position, but impact calc will help you to cover your bases so that areas that you aren't completely winning (for instance, just having defense on the politics disad) is less threatening.Practice Round 8/9 (Liz)
Your ethics card in the 1AC is good. You should consider adding framework arguments or more, other impact prioritization arguments to this aff if you find yourself wanting to collapse to this ethics card or ethics framing - particularly against negative strategies like this one that just read one off politics. You could read a bunch of generic ethics cards, deontology, or whatever you want. But I think that's something about this aff that you're not capitalizing on as much as you could. You need more 2AC offense against politics. Your terminal D is good and should get read, but you need to be generating offense as well. Moreover, you can just start calc-ing this politics disad out of the round with your ethics card. So even if you're not reading framework in the 1AC, you could read it in the 2AC to make this disad go away and/or control the internal links (because I'm positive there are cards out there that say the reason terror exists is because of Otherization, and if your aff prioritizes an ethical relationship to the Other via food or resource distribution it seems to me like the aff resolves the internal link to politics). You're doing a good job of impact comparison in the 2AR -- more of that, plz :)Rebuttal Redos--Monday 8/11
--overview needs to not get to the meta-level, just what the comparison is going to do for it
--save the specifics for moving on to the cp itself, need to speak more on the flow because of that
--address specific aff arguments 2ac order
Practice Round 8--Monday 8/11
--stay involved in the 1ac
--quicker transitions in the 1ar
--don’t be repetitive on your extention of the ux evidence, just say what it is and why its good
--good job sticking with 2ac structure
Impact Comparison Drill--8/12
--really nice job indicting their impact argument, I would probably start with why yours is good and transition to theirs bad, but again still very good
--which of these categories matters more?
--nice introductory comparison, timeframe delineations are really good
--don’t be repetitive on the “its already started” claims
--you don’t have to talk about all the categories if you do not want to
Topicality Drill--8/13
—really nice attitude
--I think u undersold the interpretation a little bit
--don’t lose that ethos and variation as you go down to the bottom of the debate
--you need to actually care about those parts of the argument
Practice Debate 8/13 (Liz)
You should work on seeing the forest through the trees. You've got conceded offense on case, but then you're reading a card that conflicts with that offense. Take a little prep if you need to and go through and identify what you've got going for you on each piece of paper. If offshore wind makes CO2 output worse, then it seems like that's a reason to not vote aff. Also, the 2AC doesn't read uniqueness with the link turns, which means that really only functions as defense for them. That seems like you've got two places where there's a substantial risk that the aff is definitely a bad idea. I think the 2NR also needs to be mostly impact comparison and weighing and less line by line.Practice Debate 11—8/15 (Baxter)
--this is probably a little more work thatn you want to use in ur 2nc prep, not DRAMATICALLY too much, but certainly some
--need some more analytical arguments dealing with their link turn arguments directly
--nice job explaining the impact arguemtns using evidence etc, bu t make sure that you are still overwhelmingly focused on responding to 2ac arguments
--ou are doing an excelltn job talking to the judge, but you might want to be doing that simultaneously from your flow—I think its likely that you can maintain th structure a little stronger and more efficiently in the first place
--be very clear what answersthey have made on the politix da and what do you need to do to get rid of them
--say “our internal link is stronger than their shit’
Practice Debate 12--8/15 (Baxter)
--extend the permutation—no reason we can’t do this, we cant wait to see if the technology works
-use the angle of solvency deficit and make sure to impact that question
--not prove they have any solvency
--when you don’t consciously criticize yourself you are doing a great job sounding convicngin, there is no fucking chance that I would know you had never seen this before